Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we focus our energies in the wrong places all the time. If we spent more time PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies, then there would be less interest in terminating human life after the fact. I think the religious folks need to start understanding that helping to prevent an unwanted pregnancy saves lives in the end.
Basically, here is the argument: Since, by causing an embryo to exist, you created a need where there was no need before. Specifically, before coming into existence, the embryo had no needs; however, now, as a result of coming into existence, it needs to use your body to survive (and for nourishment). Thus, you should be forced to take responsibility for your actions by helping the embryo out--specifically by letting this embryo continue to use your body in order to survive and to acquire nourishment.
How exactly would you respond to this pro-life argument? Basically, while I myself previously looked at both abortion and child support from the perspective of tort law (indeed, I still consider child support to be government-sanctioned swindling if there was a prior agreement *not* to seek child support), I have to admit that that I didn't place as much emphasis on the *need* aspect of the equation before.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
I would question intent. you didn't cause it to exist, you failed to prevent it. We don't cause cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. specifically but we often fail to take measures to prevent it. Therefore should we be forced to continue to let it exist or take steps to end it.
And other parasites, ticks, leeches, various worms, protozoans. Our actions may put us at risk or "cause them to exist" within or on our bodies creating a need. Should we therefore be forced to take responsibility by helping them to continue?
I would question intent. you didn't cause it to exist, you failed to prevent it. We don't cause cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. specifically but we often fail to take measures to prevent it. Therefore should we be forced to continue to let it exist or take steps to end it.
And other parasites, ticks, leeches, various worms, protozoans. Our actions may put us at risk or "cause them to exist" within or on our bodies creating a need. Should we therefore be forced to take responsibility by helping them to continue?
Have you ever looked at the preemies in the NICU?
What parasite do you think they resemble the most?
I would question intent. you didn't cause it to exist, you failed to prevent it. We don't cause cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. specifically but we often fail to take measures to prevent it. Therefore should we be forced to continue to let it exist or take steps to end it.
And other parasites, ticks, leeches, various worms, protozoans. Our actions may put us at risk or "cause them to exist" within or on our bodies creating a need. Should we therefore be forced to take responsibility by helping them to continue?
Inaction in a circumstance where you had knowledgeable control , it can be used to imply you intended it to happen. That is, if you allow something to happen when you were in full control and of the knowledge of its occurrence and yet did nothing to stop it, you are essentially responsible for its occurrence.
What parasite do you think they resemble the most?
Yes, my grandson was in the NICU, born at 32 weeks.
If I had to pick one, I go with Giardia.
I'm saying its the same premise. We have sex and there is an unintended pregnancy, we go into and infested area without protection we get parasites. Was either intentional, did we do diligence to prevent it, did we cause it. Why should we not do what is within our power to prevent it from continuing to use our bodies for its nourishment? The argument was we created the need to use our bodies for nourishment to live therefore we are obligated to continue providing that nourishment.
Yes, my grandson was in the NICU, born at 32 weeks.
If I had to pick one, I go with Giardia.
I'm saying its the same premise. We have sex and there is an unintended pregnancy, we go into and infested area without protection we get parasites. Was either intentional, did we do diligence to prevent it, did we cause it. Why should we not do what is within our power to prevent it from continuing to use our bodies for its nourishment? The argument was we created the need to use our bodies for nourishment to live therefore we are obligated to continue providing that nourishment.
Grandson? How could it have been your grandson at that point of development? Are you saying it was human at 32 weeks?
It's much more simple to me: Is an unborn child a human being?
If yes, you paid attention in biology class.
If no, you are a science denier.
Depending what stage the development is at determines viability, it has the potential to become a human being.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
